The whole affair of rituals, in this case, purity, is surrounded by bad press. In fact, the word “ritual” has an unfavourable connotation. For example, “ritual killing” is closely associated with murder. More than human sacrifice, there is also a corresponding hint of restriction on our freedom as we submit to a series of mindless observance of ceremonies and customs. This renders ritual a procedure to avoid. But beyond this, what is rarely acknowledged is that rituals are indicative of a larger picture at play. A rite is never for itself. Instead, it calls attention to our relationship and the elaborateness of a ceremony is usually a clue of how important that association is. For example, the institution of marriage is surrounded by intricate customs and observances. The more important an institution is, the greater the investment and also the grander the mystery surrounding it. A good illustration is the coronation of a monarch which is steeped in the intricacies of ceremonial significance.
Sadly, we operate beneath the umbrella of utilitarianism. Under this mantle, rites are usually set against convenience. When pitted against practicality, rites will usually lose out. In the case of an “urgency” like hunger caused by calamities, rites are deemed to be even more useless. An insistence on following them will be judged as uncaring. That would be an interpretation of today’s Gospel encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees.
In terms of the current construct with regard to our relationship with God, we do not really have to fit into God’s overarching plan for humanity. Rather God must fit into “our” framework. If not solely “personal” then it would be a predominantly “human” interpretation at work. To give an example and possibly to raise a few heckles, take the cabal of “anti-vaxxers”. Under the prevailing rhetoric, these would be viewed as “selfish rebels”. These egocentric “conspiracists” do not appreciate the protection of a “greater good”. At this moment, that is how the conversation is being framed as pressure is applied on them to submit. God has been weaponised by media moguls and tech titans to name and shame the dissenters. In the interest of full disclosure, I received two doses of Astra Zeneca, (whether or not the vaccine manufactured in Thailand/Korea/Japan is approved by the EU), which I “meekly” submitted to. It was a “practical” decision against this duress of “if you do not vaccinate, you are as good a hater of mankind”.
This “our common good” proposition basically revolves around a “me and only me” frame of reference which is easily transposed into our relationship with God. “I”, and not God, am the point of reference. This has been the case for quite a while now. To illustrate, we are accustomed to the phenomenon of people dressed in pyjamas going to a hawker centre. It is not really the “I” entering into shared space out there but rather the “out there” accommodating me by being absorbed into my “personal space”. In other words, the social arena has ceased to exist. In its place it is basically my personal space extended[1]. Fundamentally, what we have is “world, you bow before me” when translated also means “God, you submit to me”.
Within this frame of reference, the relationship between Creator and creature is almost obscured in our notion of rites. As mentioned earlier, rites, which by nature, are regulatory, they stand for coercion. For us, regulations curb or curtail our “individual freedom” and we chafe at that. But religious laws are not just mandates and prohibitions. Religious laws arise from our relationship with God. This was the context of the exchange between Jesus and the religious authorities.
We are planted deep in the soil of formality simply because “limits” fall within the mould of who we are as human beings. This harmonises with the notion of mystery. What we cannot fully explain, we tend to give it a greater latitude in terms of formality or rites[2]. Somehow, we have an exaggerated sense of freedom as defined by informality because “formality” is judged to be constricting as it ties us down. We prefer the informal and the impromptu. In this spontaneity, which we believe is where freedom flourishes, we hold that relationship with God is best served by informality. What is more endearing than the image of “cor ad cor loquitor”? Who would not desire the warmth of “heart speaks unto heart”? Yet, we may have failed to note that such a familiarity is also a fertile ground for contempt.
The dissolution of boundaries set up by rituals has grave consequences which we do not fully grasp. The point of this Sunday’s exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees is not a choice of either/or but a larger picture. Jesus Himself behaved according to what is prescribed ritually. He was ritually religious.
Our reaction towards formality may have blinded us to the unwitting vilification of the Pharisees. We dislike them because we view them as religious prigs who are intent on ritual purity. At the core of this Pharisaical rigour lies a space dedicated to God and this space is where mystery exists which is why rites are important. The Pharisees may have a misdirected emphasis but their hearts are in the right place. God is to be praised and glorified. From this perspective, religious fundamentalist or even extremists like the Afghani Taliban are spot on in desiring to give God glory ("Allahu akhbar") but they are definitely wrong in thinking that God’s honour to be protected from “infidels”.[3] He does not need any protection. Instead He is glorified through when we live virtuously. Indeed, God has no need of our praise but as the Common Preface IV reminds us, “our thanksgiving adds nothing to His greatest but profit us for salvation through Christ our Lord”.
We may fault the Pharisees for having missed the bigger picture because they are fixated on the rituals themselves as if they were the “be all and end all” of Judaism. But we are no better for we appear to focus on the absence of rituals as the purer mode of contact with God. This was actually one of the Protestants’ critique against the Catholic Church for having too many accumulated traditions that prevented a more direct access to God. Ever since the Reformation, we have begun the slow process of demystifying our relationship with God to the point that science holds a view that nothing that can be explained outside the laboratory. When mystery is removed from man, his hunger for the mystical, for what we cannot fully explain because of our temporal and special limitations, will be filled with “conspiracy”. Conspiracy is just another word of mystery.
It is time to rethink “rituals” as the space where God is given His due. In this sacred place, we recognise who we are as creatures and who God is as Creator. Rendering to God what is due to Him is the basis for our appreciation of human dignity. If you like, mystery prevents us from descending into crass functionality or utilitarianism.[4] If we want to serve our neighbour, then we must give God the praise and the reverence that belongs to Him. Thus, this seemingly useless discussion on ritual ablution highlights the profound connexion between a proper religious attitude toward God and the result which is to bear the fruits of justice and mercy. This is clearly indicated in the first and second Readings. Laws connect us with God and secondly, a purity of heart allows us to serve the poor.
In conclusion, the Pharisees’ insistence, in the light of “informality” would come across as stupid and slavish. But, if we can situate their “stupidity” within the context of what is proper to God, we can better appreciate our religious rites. It is in this context that “dressing up on Sunday” will look less of a fixation with “fashion” than it is about how we want to honour God our Saviour.
___________________
[1] Some parents do not like to discipline their children for fear of stymieing, stunting or thwarting their creativity, spontaneity and initiative. This gives rise to an often-observed phenomenon of a child behaving as if there were no difference between public and private sphere. They run around the church during Mass as if the shared space of the church is an extension of their playroom at home.
[2] Think magic and how drenched it is with incantations.
The assumption is that the greater the power sought, the more ostentatious will
be the hocus-pocus or abracadabra.
[3] A good illustration is to “protect” the
word Allah restricting its usage to Muslims only because the Islamic Allah is
far more superior than the “God” of the Christians.
[4] To be practical is good. However, “crass
practicality” is devoid of mystery. When we remove mystery from man, it
is not difficult to objectify him. The process of objectification allows us to
effortlessly slide down the slope of convenient disposal. When a foetus is no
longer a baby, it is easier to dispose of him or her with no guilt.
